It's er, kind of dead. Anyone have any idea who ran it, and why there's been no real activity for months?

Didn't he have to resign his bit over allegations of sockpuppeting? Yale, cough, Yale.

Perish the though! it was a rootkit, not socking.

(I had no idea it was JZ running Wikitruth, are you sure about this?)

I may have misremembered something...

I'd like to know who was behind that site. At one time, they had a rather unkind article about me, and after I angrily complained about it here on WR several times, an admin (a former admin now, I think--I won't say who, of course) contacted me to tell me that he had "pulled some strings" and that the article had been deleted. For all I know, the site may have actually been run by that guy (who was not Joshua Z, for the record).

In my eyes, the site discredited itself by having that article in the first place; you can't credibly call yourself a critical site when you're out there trashing an admin who actually had the guts to be an on-wiki critic in those days, and it would take a public apology, not merely a quiet deletion, to rectify that. But in fairness, they had some good stuff too. Their article about the "Jimbo's birthday" incident extinguished my last hopes that Jimbo had some worth as a project leader.

I also am curious as to who was behind it. Though Jimbo believes that Wikipedia administrators are not involved, I actually believe their story of being Wikipedia administrators.

I don't consider Wikitruth to be actual, valid criticism of Wikipedia, and instead to focus on various eccentricities of admins and other things that are not really solutions to problems or analytical indications of problems.

Edit: I've been reading this forum for a while, and I seem to remember a post where it was indicated that Wikitruth claimed that David Gerard had a backup copy of the Wikitruth website on his computer. How would they know this? Is David Gerard behind the site?

The whois for the site is masked by DomainsByProxy anonymizer.

I can't imagine JoshuaZ having anything to do with Wikitruth - that may have been a rumor started as a result of their posting some deleted WP articles, including some BLP's, with the implication that WP was engaging in "censorship" for having deleted them. JoshuaZ's M.O. was always to go to Deletion Review multiple times until he was told by higher-ups to stop, and as we later found out, to stack the deck with multiple accounts if necessary. He wasn't the sort to take matters into his own hands, and IMO the Wikitruth people probably wouldn't have engaged in much sock-puppetry, at least not for vote-stacking purposes (in other words, they may have done that to disguise their personal interests in some topic or other, but nothing seriously unethical).

Hard to say with them... I do think there was a little revenge-getting involved, particularly when they wouldn't remove the article on FCYTravis, but who knows? People can be unpredictable. But they did (do?) have some good articles.


Ehh, I'm pretty sure that was a joke, though of course you never really know with Dave Gerard either, I suppose.

I used to think that R.D.H. Ghost in the Machine was behind Wikitruth, because his writing style was similar to Wikitruth's prose style and he used to often say, "Tell the Wikitruth!" in posts in WP. But, when I asked him straight up one time in WP he said he had nothing to do with the site, although he supported the site's goals.

Some of the articles in Wikitruth are hilarious, but some of them are a little too mean-spirited. I believe that during the BADSITES hearings, SV's complaints about websites publicizing editor's "sex lives" was referring to Wikitruth since some of its editor profiles do dig a little too far into their subjects' personal lives. If I'm wrong about that perhaps she could correct me.

It was Wikitruth that led me down the path to discovering this fine forum and eventually to AntiSocialMedia.net, resulting in my eyes being opened.

I assumed it had to be an admin(s) behind it because they had access to deleted material. Anyway, I always got along well with RDH, but whoever was behind Wikitruth obviously had a scathing opinion of me.

There are currently 3 Bureaucrat/Sysops on wikitruth. One of them is apparently a 27 year old MMORPGer from Germany named Daniel.

From wikipedia-watch's list of hostmasks

64.111.110.28 wikitruth (i=silenzor@milliken.dreamhost.com)

wikitruth.info =208.97.168.86, whose reverse DNS is apache2-noxim.milliken.dreamhost.com

I host my personal sites on Dreamhost... does that give me guilt by association?

Why is the site's most viewed article on an unfortunate internet meme target, Brian Peppers?

It's pretty clear they're making fun of David Gerard for caching the whole site.

All three site admins (Nibbler, Will.i.am.tell, and Seek) are offline between about 10:00 and 16:00. The site currently shows 21:20, so it is in fact UTC. That makes them Aus/NZ.

I did not imply silenzor was 'guilty' of anything. If he is partly responsible for steering wikitruth (note I said apparently not definitely) It is a positive accomplishment.

The reverse DNS of the IP addresses for 3 of your domains that I checked is apache2-emu.dhalsim.dreamhost.com. Evidence is also lacking that you possess the necessary amount of humor to be a wikitruth admin.

I added Climbing Jack and Mastigoteuthis flamea into the mix (the only editors with more than 250 edits).

They also live in the same timezone. I think one user might be behind all of them.

Wasn't Grace Note an early member who got booted a few months in?

Meanwhile...WP hatchet site unfurls "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Er, what are they talking about here?

Wikitruth had a couple of interesting things, and by its Wiki nature, managed to gain more credibility among the Wikipedios than a message board like The Review, but it largely failed at satire. Bad writing, too much unfunny stuff, and dominated by the lunatic OMG censorship crowd. This meant that they retained and perpetuated bad material that should have been, and was, deleted from Wikipedia itself, such as Brian Peppers etc.

A lot of it simply perpetuated the monster that was Wikipedia.

You can't satirize, or attempt to battle Wikipedia, by using the same tools as Wikipedia itself. You just add to the morass of bollocks.

Yeah, right. We all remember how well things went the last time that happened:

(I'm full of crap - what I just posted had been brought up earlier on this very thread and I added nothing new)

You mean the reasonable people.

What, people who republish articles, which are essentially about anonymously attacking a wheelchair bound victim of Crouzon's syndrome, on the basis of No Censorship are the "reasonable people"?

Grow up.

Yep. Wikitruth's vision for Wikipedia is even more morally bankrupt than the status quo.

Heaven forbid Wikipedia delete attack articles. tyrannical! Why, editors should post whatever they damn well please.

Which makes them useful as an archive of some of the worse of Wikipedia. This tends to cut two ways. It provides a yardstick to measure what modest accountability that has been achieved even with much of the "community" dragged kicking and screaming. It also demonstrates the complete hydra like nature of atomized anon content creation and open source licensing. If if one site can be made to act in a responsible manner and remove irresponsible content it will tend to migrate, in it's worse form, to another site that represents another step towards the lowest common denominator. On the internet the lowest is low indeed.

Then there's this:

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

While frustrating, since there will be removals based on sensitive information being made unavailable to scrapers and this site negates that (unless it has no-follow code... Yeah, right!), it could be useful for admins who want to see deleted content without needing to use some of the tools - but of course it is viewable to all, including those with less than worthy inclinations.

It also has some use as an example of why some stuff should not be tolerated at WP - if deletion (and oversight?) cannot guarantee removal of content then people who add malicious stuff should not be treated any less severely because the material was removed from WP; the sad fact is that it might still exist elsewhere on the net.

I'll miss them. "Barnstorming" is really funny, and I have to admit that I laugh at their meaner stuff too. I think they were starting to get a little too gossipy, and they realized it.

I'll miss them...

I don't think the quality of the writing was all that bad, personally. However, it was definitely too "catty" - clearly the work of insiders, so they were somewhat lacking in objectivity. I myself would have been much more supportive if they hadn't been so selective about the individuals they targeted, or if they had just decided to forego targeting individuals entirely - it suggested that it was just another revenge wiki, at least for some of the people behind it.

Still, there's some good material there, and I'm glad they're saying they'll keep it available, at least for a while longer.

Whoever was behind the site should have disclosed his or her Wikipedia identity at some point. To write such insulting material about Wikipedians without even disclosing one's own Wikipedia account is just disgraceful.

Anyway, the site can now be considered nothing more than a bad memory, and I suggest the redirection of its Wikipedia article to "Criticism of Wikipedia" or something like that. The site is not significant and never was significant in any meaningful way.

Unless, of course, they're Wikileaker.

There's a big difference between writing hateful screeds and publishing e-mails that would enable the community to evaluate the nature of Wikipedia's high-level decision-making.

Don't forget this:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?ti...=20060417081822

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TELL_THE_WIKITRUTH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tell_The_Wikitruth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lypheklu...L_THE_WIKITRUTH

http://www.informationweek.com/news/person...cleID=185303404

And the all-time fave
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...Jimbo_Wales.jpg
Buncha losers.

What does all this mean? Nothing.
Wikitruth was a failure, or possibly a complicated hoax.
Yawn. Ho hum.

You mean a BADSITE?

I would opine that these shroom-people look like they need to get out more.

Maybe all the WP viciousness is some lack of vitamin D or physical exercise. Or really is revenge for all those past wedgies, as has been suggested. Wow.

JoshuaZ leak is a hateful screed by other means.

For those who missed it first time round, the material in question is here.

For clarity: the leak demonstrated the use of deception in the wikipedian campaign against Daniel Brandt (among others), and the enthusiasm of the "arbitrators" to cover it up. Were it not for the leak, it appears likely Sockin' JoshuaZ would be an admin again by now.

A continuing appetite to excoriate, identify and punish the leaker seems a pretty good barometer of wikipedia's will to reform itself.

If the goal of Wikileaker was to enable the community to evaluate, they would quote those emails accurately, and redact details which were both not necessary and harmful to people.

For example, this Wikileaker post is now the sixth Google result for the first persons name without quotes, and the third Google result for the second persons name without quotes, in conjunction with the term "jarrow". I asked Wikileaker to redact the names; instead, Jon Awbrey makes a joke about BLPs on Wikipedia. Oh, the irony.

In the same post, Wikileaker ask why I didnt protect the article, when I did protect the article, and this was even mentioned in my reply to the person who requested oversight, which was CC'd to oversight-l, a list that Wikileaker claims to have access to:



I've seen Wikipedia Review members who are ignorant of how to check these things, which is understandable for newcomers coming her to seek assistance, but Wikileaker is no newbie.

I am surprised that someone so bloody careless and reckless was able to gain the trust of the English Wikipedia community to become an arbitrator. That reflects badly on the community at that time, but we live and learn .. and I hope that Wikipedia Review members will also be more careful with who it trusts.

I don't believe you made it particularly clear as to how the mention of those names in association with the school was supposed to be harmful to the two people in question. You could always PM me about it if you'd rather keep it reasonably private, and we do have the ability to hide individual posts or even character strings from search engines. (Just don't tell anybody about the character strings... )


Indeed, perhaps Mr. Leaker owes you a bit of an apology for that...

We might also want to split this part of the thread off into a new one, since I know of no evidence that Wikileaker is/was involved in Wikitruth.

Geez, John, I can see why you didn't just sprotect it for 24 hours. Two whole weeks should be time enough for these kids to grow up.

The wisdom of you WP administrators astounds and confuses me! Is there a class you go to, to become smart?

I think that's the third time I've seen the leak described as "inaccurate" by various wikidefenders, which I guess is an attempt to undermine the whistleblower and misdirect from the entirely accurate substance of the exposed issue: a BLP extremist lied to support a number of defamation pages, the arbitrators wished to sweep the event under the carpet until they got caught, and the extremist in question is still there participating in hostile BLPing.

If there really was an encyclopedia being constructed, the "leaders" of wikipedia would be doing nothing else until they secured the project's assets from every random fool who wants to make use of the site for defamation and revenge. Instead, the preference is to let damage happen, then play at arbitrating after the fact.

http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Goodbye

And nothing of value was lost.

Well, nothing of intrinsic value, anyway. I doubt they could have gotten anyone to pay them for the content, unless maybe they took PayPal or something like that.

Unless you mean "lost" as in "gone," in which case I'd have to remind you that the entire site is still viewable...